1

Cosmology: Science between Facts and Faith

Laszlo A. Marosi

67061 Ludwigshafen am Rhein

E-Mail: LaszloMarosi@aol.com

Abstract

The standard cosmological model rests on a never-ending array of hypotheses and assumptions (dark

matter, dark energy and others) which either cannot be proved or, although theoretically possible,

cannot yet be proved experimentally. This lack of secure knowledge raises legitimate doubts over the

validity of the Big Bang model, which therefore cannot be seen as the ultimate answer to the question

of the emergence and evolution of the universe. If the search for dark matter and dark energy turns out

to be unsuccessful, the whole construction will break down and we will unavoidably face the question

of which of the many different models based on Einsteins field equation represents the real world.

Keywords: redshift, Enstein Einstein deSitter, dark matter, dark energy, inflation

1. Introduction

The era of science-based cosmology began in 1917, when Einstein applied his Theory of

General Relativity to the universe as a whole [1]. Assuming that the universe is homogeneous

and isotropic on the large scale (the Cosmological Principle) and that the physical laws as

known from terrestrial mechanics are the same across the whole universe (the Principle of

Universality), Einstein found a surprisingly simple solution that implies an expanding

universe:

8G
v
2

3
M ,obs. (1)

According to Equation (1), the universe should either be contracting or expanding, with a

velocity proportional to its mass density. The idea of the expanding universe was born but not

accepted. Einstein firmly believed that the universe was static, and he therefore modified his
 2

result; his ad hoc introduction of a hypothetical cosmological constant into his field

equation led to the construction of a homogeneous, static, temporally infinite but spatially

finite, flat universe, unchanging in size.

In 1929, Hubble published his famous relation between distance and radial velocity

among extra-galactic nebulae [2]; Einstein, convinced by this impressive data set, changed

his mind and finally accepted the velocity interpretation of Hubbles Law. Together with de

Sitter [3], he set up a model for an expanding universe that became the basis for Big Bang

cosmology.

It should be mentioned that the interpretation of Hubbles Law as recession velocitythe

basic pillar of Big Bang cosmologywas more a question of belief (supported by the analogy

of the physically well-understood Doppler effect) than the compelling consequence of

underlying astronomical observations. Today, the velocity interpretation enjoys the status of

the principal dogma of Big Bang cosmology, and doubts about this are considered to be

obviously unfounded.

2. Basic Assumptions of the Big Bang Cosmological Model

According to the basic assumptions of the Big Bang model, the universe began 1020 billion

years ago as a primeval fireball of infinite density and temperature, from an instantaneously

expanding point (singularity), and has been expanding and cooling ever since. The tearing

force of the expansion is assumed to be the outward impulse of the primordial Big Bang, and

the velocity of expansion is given by Hubbles constant, H0 = 72.8 km s-1 Mpc-1. It is assumed

that over time, gravity will slow down the outward velocity.

3. Observations Contra Theory

However, scrutiny of the astronomical data has revealed significant discrepancies between

theory and observation. A few examples of these are the fine-tuning problem, the horizon
 3

problem, the age problem and the missing mass problem. The missing mass problem arises

from the paradigm of the Big Bang theory, i.e. kinetic energy = gravitational energy,

according to which the critical mass for a flat universe 3H2/8G, (H=72.6 km s-1 Mpc-1)

corresponds to a mass density of 10-29 g cm-3. In contrast, the density of matter observed so

far amounts only to a few percent of the critical value.

There are fatal contradictions between observation and prediction in the Big Bang theory. In

any other field of physics, such a theory would have been abandoned for reasons of

irremediable disagreement with observation.

4. The Lambda Cold Dark Matter (CDM) Cosmological Model

Instead, new hypotheses were devised in order to make the Big Bang model consistent with

observation. The majority of astronomers are convinced that large quantities of some

unidentified dark matter (DM) pervade the universe. Astronomers also suspect the existence

of dark energy (DE), which would produce the accelerated cosmic expansion [4]. If DM and

DE are assumed, the Big Bang model can match each of the critical observations arising from

the missing baryonic mass. The newly introduced but still elusive dark components have an

impressive explanatory potential, and with these, the CDM model can explain

- the origin and expansion of the universe,

- the abundance of light elements, and

- the existence of the 2.7K cosmic microwave background (CMB), among others.

At the same time, however, DM and DE produce other grave problems of no less importance

than the old ones, which in turn require new hypotheses to explain them.

5. The Dark Energy Problem

The cosmological constant is usually interpreted as the energy contained in empty space,

i.e. the zero point energy of the quantum vacuum. However, the estimated energy of the
 4

vacuum exceeds the value required by the CDM model by 120 orders of magnitude. This is

the most momentous discrepancy between theory and observation known in astrophysics. For

resolution of the problem, one may assume that the positive vacuum energy is cancelled out

so precisely by some other negative quantity that only the required value remains. This would

demand an incredible fine tuning of the positive and negative energies, which is extremely

unlikely.

In recent approaches, several forms of varying cosmological constants have been introduced

into the Einstein equations, and a number of authors have constructed models in which

specific decay laws are postulated for . Examples of phenomenological -decay laws are

summarized in [5]. The most prominent example is quintessence, a hypothetical form of dark

energy, postulated as an explanation for the accelerating rate of expansion [6]. These theories,

however, are entirely speculative as much as it is not clear what the physical nature of the

dark energy should be. The tiny value of the cosmological constant represents one of the

greatest problems in present day cosmology.

In spite of the ad hoc introduction of the hypothetical variables of DM and DE, a number of

problems remain unsolved: the flatness or fine-tuning problem, the horizon problem and the

magnetic monopole problem, for example, which cannot be explained within the frame of the

standard model. A new hypothesis has therefore been invented in order to explain these

puzzles.

6. One More Hypothesis: The Inflationary CDM Model

Guth [7] proposed the inflationary theory, according to which the early universe had a brief

period of extremely rapid expansion during which its diameter increased by a factor of

perhaps 1050. The inflationary scenario is capable of avoiding the flatness and horizon

problems. Guth has shown that this exponential expansion automatically flattens matter in -

homogeneities exactly to the critical density. If we further assume that the inflationary
 5

universe would have been small enough for light to come into equilibrium before inflation

started, the horizon problem disappears.

7. The Magnetic Monopole Problem

Grand Unified Theories predict a number of heavy, stable particles that have not been

observed in nature, for example the existence of magnetic monopoles, which are predicted to

occur to the extent of being the primary constituent of the Universe. Not only is this not the

case, but all searches for them have failed.

An Alternative Hypothesis in Order to Make the First One Work

A period of inflation occurring below the temperature at which magnetic monopoles can be

produced would offer a possible resolution of this problem: monopoles would be separated

from each other as the universe around them expands, potentially lowering their observed

density by many orders of magnitude.

Cosmologist Martin Rees has commented: "Skeptics about exotic physics might not be hugely

impressed by a theoretical argument to explain the absence of particles that are themselves

only hypothetical. Preventive medicine can readily seem 100 percent effective against a

disease that doesn't exist!" [8].

Hypotheses Bearing on Cosmology

The Cosmological Principle is the basic foundation of the standard model, and asserts that

the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale. Temperature measurements show

that the temperature of the CMB is uniform to one part in 105. Experimental proof of

homogeneity and isotropy has also been presented using other methods. The validity of the

Cosmological Principle can be taken for granted.

 6

Table 1
Entities which have never been observed, and which cannot be proved experimentally
Hypothesis Comment
Singularity A single point of infinite mass and energy. The understanding of this lies beyond the
human power of imagination.
Inflation I would not settle any bets on whether inflation really happened. I am not criticizing the
theory; I simply mean that this is brave, pioneering work still to be tested [9].
Negative pressure This is a strange notion. It is unlikely that the zero point energy of the quantum vacuum
plays any role in cosmology at all.
All parts of the universe began How could all the different parts of the Universe began expanding simultaneously? Who
expanding simultaneously. gave the command?[10].

Hypothesis
Dark matter
Dark energy
The actual tiny value of the
cosmological constant
Hubbles constant represents
recession velocity
Expansion hypothesis
The physical laws as known
from celestial mechanics are
the same in the whole universe
Table 2
Provable but as yet not unproven
Comment
Only indirect evidence exists, which possibly shows only that something is wrong with
the Big Bang theory.
Its true nature, if it exists at all, is completely unknown. The cosmological constant is 120
orders of magnitude smaller.
No solution to this problem is in sight.
The root of all evil. Expansion according to Equation (1) would require neither DM nor
DE.
A substantial minority of scientists dissent from the velocity interpretation of H0.
Static models fit the observations better.
When we extrapolate the Inverse Square Law from the solar system where it was
established, out to galaxies and clusters of galaxies, it simply never works. We cover up
this scandal by professing to believe in Dark Matter, for which as much independent
evidence exists as for the Emperors New Clothes [11].

As can be seen from Tables 1 and 2, nearly all of the problems of the Big Bang cosmology

can only be solved by introducing new hypotheses which in important respects cannot be

proved experimentally. New hypotheses are necessary to explain the consequences of the old

hypotheses.

Nevertheless, the majority of astronomers are convinced that the inflationary CDM model is

the correct description of the beginning and evolution of the universe, and that the model

needs only a few extensions and minor corrections. The publication of alternatives to this

theory is almost impossible in scientific journals. Even observations are now interpreted

through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the
 7

big bang [12]. This has also happened to the author, with the following reasoning being

given for a refusal:

The exponential slope of the Hubble Diagram [13, 14] is highly implausible. Several sources

suggest that it (within the frame of the Big Bang theory) never can be the case. Certain

theories such as the Big Bang cosmology and the accelerated expansion of the universe have

been considered as truth [] and even Nobel prizes have been awarded on it. It all suggests

that author has not performed the analysis with care.

I can assure the reader that I carried out these analyses with great care; the results have also

been confirmed by other authors [15-17].

I believe the reasoning for the refusal was not as obvious as that given by the Referee:

The only direct evidence so far for a cosmological constant comes from the Hubble diagram

of distant Type Ia supernovae, a method which relies on the standard candle hypothesis and

on empirical corrections to the observed peak magnitudes on the basis of the observed decay

times. Such corrections are essential for reducing the scatter in the data sufficiently so as to

allow significant cosmological deductions. However there are systematic differences in the

corrections made for the same objects by the two groups which raise legitimate concerns

about their validity [18]. Further uncertainties are as follows.

An analysis of the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae (shows) that the evidence for

accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call "three-sigma". This is far short of the

five-sigma standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance [19]. Another

unexplained fact is that the light curves of gamma ray bursts do not show time dilation at all,

and thus the velocity interpretation remains questionable.

As one can see, the concordance model is not as concordant as supposed by the Referee.
 8

Presently, it might be too early to consider the concordance model as definitely established,

corroborated by independent probes [20].

The question therefore arises: what is the real status of the CDM Big Bang cosmology?

Presently, no final answer can be given to this question:

- Either the CDM model is the biggest triumph of human imagination; or

- It is its biggest mistake, caused by a dogmatic adherence to a wrong paradigm, namely

to the velocity interpretation of the cosmic redshift; a new proof in the history of

cosmology that mathematics and physics cannot recognize the truth if the basic idea of

the model is wrong.

Lastly, for purpose of correctness: The CDM model does not only rest on postulates,

hypotheses and ideas. There are a number of observations and experiments and an impressive

theoretical background which are strong indications in favor of the Big Bang model; however,

they do not prove it. We have many theories and hypotheses and many experimental results in

favor of the Big Bang, but also many possibilities for explaining the same phenomenon in a

different way [21-24]. Although the theory provides a straightforward explanation for the

major problems of cosmology, the price is high: Big Bang cosmology rests on a never-ending

number of hypotheses, the line between facts and faith is small and some of the cosmological

hypotheses seem to have a quasi-religious stance.

References

[1] Einstein, A. (1917). Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen

Relativittstheorie. Sitzungsberichte Berliner Akademie.

[2] Hubble, E. (1929). A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-
Galactic Nebulae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 15, 168-173
 9

[3] Einstein A. & de Sitter, W. (1932). On the Relation between the Expansion and the Mean
Density of the Universe. Proc. Nat Acad. Sci., 18, 213

[4] Perlmutter, S., et al. (1999). Measurements of and from 42 High-Redshift

Supernovae. Astrophysical Journal, 517, 565; Riess, A., et al. (1998). Observational Evidence
from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. Astronomical
Journal, 116, 1009

[5] Overduin, J. M. & Cooperstock, F. I. (1998). Evolution of the Scale Factor with a Variable
Cosmological Term. arXiv: astro-ph/9805260 v1

[6] Caldwell, R. R., Dave, R. & Steinhardt, P. J. (1998), Cosmological Imprint of an Energy
Component with General Equation-of-State. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (8): 1582-1585. Bibcode:
1998PhRvL..80.1582C, arXiv:astro-ph/9708069 .doi:10.1103

[7] Guth, A. H. (1981). Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness
problem. Physical Review D, Vol. 23, No. 2, 347-356

[8] Rees, M. (1998). Before the Beginning. N.Y. Basic Books, p.185, ISBN 0-291-15142-1

[9] Peebles, P. J. E. (2001) Making sense of modern cosmology. Scientific American, January

[10] Linde, A. (1994). The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe. Scientific American,

November

[11] Disney, M. J. (2000) The Case Against Cosmology. arXiv: astro-ph/0009020

[12] New Scientist, May 22-28, 2004, p. 20, Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

[13] Marosi, L. A. (2014). Hubble Diagram Test of 280 Supernovae Redshift Data. Journal of
Modern Physics, 5, 29-33

[14] Marosi, L. A. (2016). Modelling and Analysis of the Hubble Diagram of 280 Supernovae
and Gamma Ray Bursts Redshifts with Analytical and Empirical Redshift/Magnitude
Functions. International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 6, 272-275

[15] Vigoureux, J. M. & Vigoureux, B. (2014). An Analytical Expression of the Hubble

Diagram of Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts. arXiv: 1411. 3648 [physics. gen-ph]

[16] Churoux, P. (2015). A new interpretation of the Hubble law. Journal of Modern
Physics, 6, 1227-1232

[17] Traunmller, H. (2014) From Magnitudes and Redshifts of Supernovae, Their Light-
Curves, and Angular Sizes of Galaxies to a Tenable Cosmology. Astrophysics and Space
Science, 350, 755-767
 10

[18] Blanchard, A., Douspis, M., Rowan-Robinson & Sarkar, S. (2003). An alternative to the
cosmological concordance model. Astron. Astrophys., 412, 35-44

[19] Nielsen. J. T., Guffanti, A. & Sarkar, S. 21 October 2016, Marginal evidence for cosmic
acceleration from Type Ia supernovae. Nature Scientific Reports, 6

[20] Pecker, J.-C. & Narlikar, J. (2006). Current Issues in Cosmology. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

[21] Leibundgut, B., et al. (1996). Time Dilation in the Light Curve of the Distant Type Ia
Supernova SN 1995K B. arXiv:astro-ph/9605134, 22 May 1996

[22] Lpez-Corredoira, M. (2008). Observational cosmology: Caveats and open questions in

the standard model. arXiv: astro-ph/0310214, Oct. 2003

[23] Lpez-Corredoira, M. (2015). Tests for the Expansion of the Universe. arXiv:
1501.01487 [astro-ph. CO]

[24] Crawford, D. F. (2014). Observational evidence favors a static universe. arXiv:

1009.0953 [physics.gen-ph]

[25] Hartnett, J. G. (2011). Is the Universe really expanding? arXiv: 1107.2485 [physics-gen]